Disposed¶32

Muthuramalingam v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC28 Nov 2025WP(MD)/34617/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refund of Rs.10,00,000 interim deposit; HR&CE Department Madurai; Assistant Commissioner Arulmigu Sundararaja Perumal Koil Alagarkovil; papers seized; W.P.(MD)No.18875 of 2017; W.M.P.(MD)No.15223 of 2017; representation disposal ten weeks; Muthuramalingam v Joint Commissioner HR&CE; third respondent G. Vivekanandan; Article 226 mandamus; Justice G.R. Swaminathan; 28.11.2025; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without costs; second respondent directed to consider the petitioner's refund representation and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law within ten weeks (taking interested persons on notice if needed), with immediate refund if the petitioner is found not liable; notice to the third respondent dispensed with. ¶32

Muthuramalingam Vs The Joint Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited pursuant to the interim order in W.M.P.(MD)No.15223 of 2017 in W.P.(MD)No.18875 of 2017, given his claim that he is not liable to make any payment.

¶13

Court's answer

The second respondent (Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Arulmigu Sundararaja Perumal Koil, Alagarkovil) shall consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law, if necessary by putting all interested persons on notice, completing the exercise within a period of ten weeks from receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Issuance of notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

¶21

Key takeaways

If, at the end of the enquiry, the second respondent concludes that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount, the refund shall be made immediately thereafter.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(MD)No.34617 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 28.11.2025 by Justice G.R. Swaminathan: Muthuramalingam, who had been directed (interim order in W.M.P.(MD)No.15223 of 2017 in W.P.(MD)No.18875 of 2017, an earlier petition for return of papers seized from him) to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- with the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, Alagarkovil, sought mandamus for its refund, claiming the earlier petition (disposed 27.06.2018) established he owed nothing. Notice to third respondent G. Vivekanandan was dispensed with. The second respondent was directed to consider the representation and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law within ten weeks, putting interested persons on notice if necessary, and to refund immediately if the petitioner is found not liable. Petition disposed of; no costs.

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.34617 OF 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 28.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.34617 of 2025

Muthuramalingam

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Madurai District.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Arulmigu Sundararaja Perumal Koil, Alagarkovil, Madurai District.

¶12

3.G.Vivekanandan ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to refund the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order in W.M.P.(MD)No.15223 of 2017 in W.P.(MD)No.18875 of 2017 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Mamtha For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.G.Suriya Ananth, Additional Government Pleader. * * *

¶15

1/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

2 W.P.(MD)NO.34617 OF 2025

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner

¶20

and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶21

Issuance of notice to the third respondent is dispensed

¶22

with.

¶23

The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.18875 of

¶24

2017 for directing the respondents 1 and 2 to hand over the papers seized from him from the petition-mentioned premises. This Court had directed the writ petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/with the second respondent.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states

¶26

that the writ petition filed by him was taken up along with other writ petitions and disposed of on 27.06.2018. The petitioner however claims that this Court had made it clear that the petitioner is not liable to make any payment.

¶27

2/4

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

3 W.P.(MD)NO.34617 OF 2025

¶30

In this view of the matter, the petitioner seeks refund of

¶31

the amount earlier deposited by him and he had given representation in this regard.

¶32

The second respondent shall consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law if necessary by putting all interested persons on notice. This exercise shall be completed within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If at the end of enquiry, the second respondent comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount, refund shall be made immediately, thereafter. This writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶33

28.11.2025

¶34

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU

¶35

3/4

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

4 W.P.(MD)NO.34617 OF 2025

¶38

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.